Go-Op developments...

[Wath Yard]

Whether open access operators are playing on a level playing field or not rather depends on how you look at it. They have both advantages and disadvantages over franchised operators. Some of the advantages being they don't have any (expensive) legacy staff or infrastructure (e.g. depots) and can carefully select the routes they want to operate. The main disadvantage is if they don't make a profit they go bust as they will not receive any form of subsidy. The DfT and the ORR both currently view OAO's quite favourably as they tend to run services at a lower cost than franchised operators, can provide services that franchised operators can't or won't and have been shown to grow the market.

One thing that certainly shouldn't happen is a total free for all and the ensuing chaos that occurred after bus deregulation with companies fighting each other over profitable routes and ditching unprofitable ones, which if replicated on the railway would leave the tax payer with a very large bill.

 

[Schnellzug]

i think it's rather like the Royal Mail; competition should be encouraged where it's feasible, and where, if one company does go bust, there's another than can plug the gap, but in a lot of the more remote corners (and on commuter routes) there wouldn't be much chance of anyone being able to run it profitably, or it would just lead to confusion. So continue to franchise the basic network (but with sensibel lengths of franchises and much more freedom for the operators) and allow competition where it's viable and dioesn't just cream off from subsidised operators, that's what I say.

 

[tbtc]

The difference being that UPS aren't taking scarce "slots" on the road that Royal Mail could otherwise use, nor are they automatically sharing in the Royal Mail's revenue even if they don't deliver many letters.

I can see why right wingers think that they can apply "competition" to the railways, but the infrastructure requirements mean it can't work properly. Maybe it sounds like a good idea on paper, but pathing/ ORCATS etc means it doesn't work very well in reality

 

[Tiny Tim]

I agree that bus deregulation demonstrates how not to set up a free market. It's still causing problems around here. However, OAOs don't seem to have been able to operate any serious amount of rail services, and there doesn't seem much prospect of success for Go-Op or anyone else. The ORR may smile on OAOs, but their existence seems to be of largely cosmetic value.

 

[34D]

They are not going to be using 150s. There are none spare, as I stated earlier the DfT probably wouldn't allow it anyway, and I doubt you could path a 150 on either the GWML or between Didcot and Birmingham.

Yes, but in 5 years there will have been a fair bit of electrification and cascades. I'd suggest that 142s and maybe some 150s will get sold in the next 5-10 years - whether this is to Iran, to the East Lancs Railway, to EMR scrapyard or to Go-Op is irrelevant to the DfT and the ROSCO.

And realistically it will be 5-10 years before Go-Op run a train. I'd put a quid in.

 

[Schnellzug]

The difference being that UPS aren't taking scarce "slots" on the road that Royal Mail could otherwise use, nor are they automatically sharing in the Royal Mail's revenue even if they don't deliver many letters.

I can see why right wingers think that they can apply "competition" to the railways, but the infrastructure requirements mean it can't work properly. Maybe it sounds like a good idea on paper, but pathing/ ORCATS etc means it doesn't work very well in reality

But that's exactly the reason why a free-for-all mayhem wouldn't happen, since timetabling and control is the responsibility of a third party, just as with Airports. The air travel industry seems to work quite successfully on that basis. And as for ORCATS, that's a hopelessly old fashioned and unsophisticated system, and they really should think about something more sophisticated, I feel.

 

[Wath Yard]

Yes, but in 5 years there will have been a fair bit of electrification and cascades. I'd suggest that 142s and maybe some 150s will get sold in the next 5-10 years - whether this is to Iran, to the East Lancs Railway, to EMR scrapyard or to Go-Op is irrelevant to the DfT and the ROSCO.

And realistically it will be 5-10 years before Go-Op run a train. I'd put a quid in.

I agree with your 1st point, however anything surplus to requirements and sold will still need to be DDA-compliant if it is to have continued use in this country, and that would require an OAO to spend quite a lot of money on very old kit.

I don't agree with your 2nd point. I reckon if they don't start operating services in the next couple of years that will be it and they will have no hope of raising the required capital and will have to call it a day. They are already 3 years behind their original schedule as it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that bus deregulation demonstrates how not to set up a free market. It's still causing problems around here. However, OAOs don't seem to have been able to operate any serious amount of rail services, and there doesn't seem much prospect of success for Go-Op or anyone else. The ORR may smile on OAOs, but their existence seems to be of largely cosmetic value.

OAOs have done pretty well on the ECML, they have managed to gain a decent number of paths and 2 of the 3 routes are profitable.

There haven't actually been that many credible OAO proposals. GC from Blackpool - London is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that didn't come to fruition (and yes I know about Alliance but some of their proposals were slightly odd, e.g. Carlisle - London via the Cumbrian coast).

 

[tbtc]

OAOs have done pretty well on the ECML, they have managed to gain a decent number of paths and 2 of the 3 routes are profitable

...but would they be profitable without the share of the London - Doncaster/York traffic? Could GC's Sunderland service survive without the slice of the York market?

At the moment an OA operator automatically gets a share of these flows, based on the number of services they run (etc), so they can guarantee some revenue even if they aren't carrying many passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that's exactly the reason why a free-for-all mayhem wouldn't happen, since timetabling and control is the responsibility of a third party, just as with Airports. The air travel industry seems to work quite successfully on that basis. And as for ORCATS, that's a hopelessly old fashioned and unsophisticated system, and they really should think about something more sophisticated, I feel.

However with airports, if I get slots to run a London - Edinburgh flight then I take the risk of not selling any seats on that flight, I don't qualify for a 10% share of the "pot" of revenue between the two cities (in the way that an OAO on the rails would).

I'd rather ORCATS was sorted out before we encouraged more OAOs to claim a share

 

[GNERman]

There haven't actually been that many credible OAO proposals. GC from Blackpool - London is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that didn't come to fruition (and yes I know about Alliance but some of their proposals were slightly odd, e.g. Carlisle - London via the Cumbrian coast).

He hum...

Platinum Trains Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh - London Kings Cross (maybe not credible though )
First Harrogate Trains Harrogate, Knaresborugh and York to London Kings Cross?

 

[tbtc]

He hum...

Platinum Trains Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh - London Kings Cross (maybe not credible though )
First Harrogate Trains Harrogate, Knaresborugh and York to London Kings Cross?

There have been a few "odd" ones, but its hard to know what is a sensible suggestion and what isn't. There was a plan for a service between Lincoln and Stratford (east London, not "on Avon") that seemed a bit different...

 

[GNERman]

...but would they be profitable without the share of the London - Doncaster/York traffic?

And the one EVERYONE forgets, HT with Grantham?

 

[Wath Yard]

First Harrogate Trains Harrogate, Knaresborugh and York to London Kings Cross?

Calling at :
...
York
Doncaster
Retford
Grantham
Stevenage
London King's Cross

*Cough, ORCATs raid.

 

[Jonny]

He hum...

Platinum Trains Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh - London Kings Cross (maybe not credible though )
First Harrogate Trains Harrogate, Knaresborugh and York to London Kings Cross?

I heard that the Platinum Trains got shot down before launch due to the risk of disruption caused by "early running" in a non-stop slot :-?

Edit - that's ??? but plausible

 

[34D]

I agree with your 1st point, however anything surplus to requirements and sold will still need to be DDA-compliant if it is to have continued use in this country, and that would require an OAO to spend quite a lot of money on very old kit.

I don't agree with your 2nd point. I reckon if they don't start operating services in the next couple of years that will be it and they will have no hope of raising the required capital and will have to call it a day. They are already 3 years behind their original schedule as it is.

Re DDA, could someone provide a link to what is expected of trains and by when? Is it the same legislation as for buses?

Calling at :
...
York
Doncaster
Retford
Grantham
Stevenage
London King's Cross

*Cough, ORCATs raid.

Don't be silly, its called stopping trains at places people want to go to - Harrogate-Lincoln or Worksop changing at Retford, Knaresborough to Nottingham or Boston changing at Grantham.

There have been a few "odd" ones, but its hard to know what is a sensible suggestion and what isn't. There was a plan for a service between Lincoln and Stratford (east London, not "on Avon") that seemed a bit different...

This one was (in my view) a very good idea. Does anyone recall who was behind this please?

 

[swt_passenger]

I heard that the Platinum Trains got shot down before launch due to the risk of disruption caused by "early running" in a non-stop slot :-?

According to the ORR website:

Platinum Trains’ service – we did not consider that this service passed our “not primarily abstractive” test. Even if it were possible to operate the service with the journey times envisaged by Platinum Trains, the service would produce relatively low levels of revenue generation compared to abstraction, with MVA forecasting a generation to abstraction ratio below that which we have previously approved. The generation to abstraction ratio of the service would fall further if Platinum Trains were not able to achieve the desired journey times, as appears likely. Further, the proposals would essentially duplicate existing services between London and Aberdeen and are forecast to create net economic disbenefits.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ecml-finaldec_270209.pdf

So basically whatever the timetabling issues, they were not considered commercially viable. The same linked document explains that the Hull trains to Harrogate also failed the abstraction test...

 

[Tiny Tim]

"Further, the proposals would essentially duplicate existing services between London and Aberdeen and are forecast to create net economic disbenefits."

This isn't really the place to criticise the ORR's use of words, but 'disbenefits'? Not content with strangling Platinum Trains' ambitions, they now aim to murder the English language as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

"Further, the proposals would essentially duplicate existing services between London and Aberdeen and are forecast to create net economic disbenefits."

This isn't really the place to criticise the ORR's use of words, but 'disbenefits'? Not content with strangling Platinum Trains' ambitions, they now aim to murder the English language as well.

The routeing guide authors would probably use the term 'negative benefits' - which is arguably worse...

 

[IanXC]

"Further, the proposals would essentially duplicate existing services between London and Aberdeen and are forecast to create net economic disbenefits."

This isn't really the place to criticise the ORR's use of words, but 'disbenefits'? Not content with strangling Platinum Trains' ambitions, they now aim to murder the English language as well.

I think we have to blame economists for that one. I have to admit to having used 'disbenefits' from time to time. I'm sure there are some better ones, but also see diseconomies of scale, disequilibrium and disintermediation

 

[TheWalrus]

It does seem a bit pointless now. Maybe a Bristol-Swindon-Oxford-Birmingham route would be worth doing instead of Westbury. Not to mention it would actually be useful for me

 

[Tiny Tim]

Whist I wouldn't completely dismiss Go-Op, their ambitions do seem overly optimistic. They also have projects to run to Ludgershall and Radstock, both of which would require some serious new construction.

 

[BestWestern]

Whist I wouldn't completely dismiss Go-Op, their ambitions do seem overly optimistic. They also have projects to run to Ludgershall and Radstock, both of which would require some serious new construction.

Difficult to see them as anything more than dreamers....

 

[joeykins82]

I can't see anywhere else for an OAO to run a commercially successful service.

For an open access operator to succeed there needs to be a suppressed demand (usually due to a lack of direct services) on a route with sufficient spare capacity for the OAO to run regular services. King's Cross to Hull is a good example. I can't see any remaining opportunities for OAOs to operate where both of the criteria are met.

 

[swt_passenger]

It does seem a bit pointless now. Maybe a Bristol-Swindon-Oxford-Birmingham route would be worth doing instead of Westbury. Not to mention it would actually be useful for me

They originally hoped to use Yeovil Jn as the southern terminus of their route, that was fairly quickly cut back to Westbury - IIRC because research found there was no realistic demand...

 

[Muzer]

This has existed for a long time. The closest they got to success was a PPM trial on the mid-hants railway, but the PPM was broken in transit so that failed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whist I wouldn't completely dismiss Go-Op, their ambitions do seem overly optimistic. They also have projects to run to Ludgershall and Radstock, both of which would require some serious new construction.

Councillors in Ludgershall now want it to become a heritage railway... how far that will get is another matter.

 

[Nic nic]

Soooo what are people's views of Go Ops proposed franchise actually ever getting out of the starting blocks?

http://go-op.coop/plans/

Plans

Mainline Rail - on our flagship Westbury to Birmingham Moor Street service, we have developed a plan for a clockface timetable using brand new rolling stock.


Ultra light rail - we are researching options to trial a service at locations including Ludgershall, Radstock, Swindon and Yeovil.


Bus routes- we have a shortlist of routes and hope to be making announcements soon; a key issue is how we can ensure that buses link up with our other services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A couple of the directors have relevant rail experience, but their prospectus doesn't read much like a TOC-in-waiting to me.
How are they going to find (and fund) "brand new" diesel trains to operate their "flagship route" (Westbury-Swindon-Oxford-Birmingham Moor St)?
http://go-op.coop/plans/

 

[The Planner]

They are still trying to get going and still in the process of trying to find paths. Going to be difficult if not impossible though and it will be some sort of DMU so dont expect locos....

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's completely unrelated to THE Co-op. That's why it had to be renamed Go-Op in the first place...

Indeed. What was the old name, Go-Co-op wasn't it? If so, I actually think the new name sounds more like THE Co-Op than the old one.

I wonder if they (Go-Op) will be considering alternative routes south of Oxford (eg. Bristol - Oxford) now that the line through Melksham has a franchise service worth speaking of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are still trying to get going and still in the process of trying to find paths. Going to be difficult if not impossible though and it will be some sort of DMU so dont expect locos....

DMU would imply new stock, since there are no spare DMUs at the momment. Thus LHCS might actually be their only chance of getting anything running.

 

[Bodiddly]

Are they serious, or is this a spoof? Going with their website, I don't think FGW or Crosscountry need to be worrying too soon. I am going to apply to run a once daily return from Glasgow QS to Mallaig using split box steam heat 37 012 'Loch Rannoch', Ethel 1 and a rake of mk 1 composites all in BR blue. Not much of a business case but you would find me at work 20 hours a day!

 

[JaJaWa]

Recent internal Network Rail documents continue to mention preparations for Go-Op.